The Canadian constitution may protect their citizens from unreasonable searches, BUT, what is reasonable?

I doubt that you will find any judge or magistrate on either side of the border who would think that requiring a warrant for each house to be searched, when the town is evacuated due to a natural disaster, AND that the searches are being done to ensure they got everybody out, is reasonable or prudent.

Now, the fact that during the search for people, bodies, gas leaks, or other dangerous situations, the RCMP picking up loose guns and holding them for their owner's return might just be considered reasonable and prudent.

Who's viewpoint is right will be decided by a Canadian court, at some later date, I'm sure.

This is NOT the same sort of situation we had during Katrina. There we had cops going to people's homes, WHILE PEOPLE WERE THERE and taking their guns away. Quite a different situation than police picking up loose guns after the people have evacuated. Quite different, beyond the fact that one was in the US and the other in Canada.

Not saying it was the right thing to do, only that it may have been allowable under Canadian law, even though, based on the scanty information we currently have, it upset a number of residents.

__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

It's pretty clear that securing the firearms from looters (if that is what they were doing) isn't a matter of securing valuables so much as it's a matter of securing potentially dangerous items. A methhead getting your flatscreen isn't a big issue. There's not much he can do with it except sell it. A methhead getting your gun (or a whole town full of them) is a bit of a bigger problem.

Also, like 44 AMP, said. They allegedly weren't going around specifically looking for guns. They went to ALL homes looking for bodies and survivors in need of help (which, after a disaster like that, I think would qualify as reasonable cause even in the U.S.) and were told to simply pick up whatever guns they happened to see. Not cracking open safes, not cutting open your mattress, not pulling up your floorboards. Just whatever was in plain view.
And frankly, if there's a natural disaster, with all the looters and criminals that entails and you abandon your home for who knows how long and just leave your guns lying around where anyone could clearly see them. You really have no grounds to complain when you find they're not there upon your return.

So really the only potential issue I see here is what would count as "proof of ownership" to get them back.

Also, like 44 AMP, said. They allegedly weren't going around specifically looking for guns. They went to ALL homes looking for bodies and survivors in need of help (which, after a disaster like that, I think would qualify as reasonable cause even in the U.S.) and were told to simply pick up whatever guns they happened to see. Not cracking open safes, not cutting open your mattress, not pulling up your floorboards. Just whatever was in plain view.
And frankly, if there's a natural disaster, with all the looters and criminals that entails and you abandon your home for who knows how long and just leave your guns lying around where anyone could clearly see them. You really have no grounds to complain when you find they're not there upon your return.

What article stated that the RCMP was looking for bodies and survivors in need of help? Even IF that might be true (although I question its validity), it wouldn't qualify as reasonable cause in the U.S. if the people locked their doors when they left. That would mean that, to enter, the police/RCMP would have to commit a felony in order to even gain entry into the houses. And the article cited in the opening post confirms that's exactly what they did -- broke into locked houses. (That's what "forced entry" means.)

Secondly, exactly where was it reported that the RCMP picked up only firearms that were in plain sight? I will assume they didn't crack any gun safes (but one should never assume), but most people simply don't leave guns lying around in plain sight, especially if evacuating home for an indeterminate period of time. Certainly not a whole town full of people. So that strongly suggests that, at the least, the RCMP went rooting around in people's closets, attics and basements looking for guns.

If you have specific, reliable citations to prove me wrong, please post the links.

The Calgary Herald has a short follow up piece on the fallout from the gun seizures. Specifically, "the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP will examine whether officers broke any laws or breached force policies."

Also, of interest might be this resident's quote that may answer some of the speculation earlier in this thread:

Greg Kvisle has reclaimed two guns that he says were hidden in a basement storage room when he evacuated.

“I’m not buying this story from the police about taking firearms left on the kitchen table,” Kvisle said.

“The truth is they kicked down locked doors and went digging through people’s closets.”

If his experience is anything close to typical, that's a far cry from simply securing guns sitting in plain sight on the kitchen table or on a bed.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.